WTC lease holder admits WTC7 was intentionally demolished !

The lease holder of the WTC7 building admits it has been intentionally demolished. I wonder why they had explosives in place coincidentally on 9-11?

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire,
and I said, We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the
building collapse"

THIS SHOWS FEMA LIED IN THE REPORT. WHY WOULD THEY LIE IF THEY HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE?

"Alex Jones, host of The Alex Jones Show, which is aired on the Genesis Communications Radio Network, today
featured an in-depth discussion on the comments of Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex. In an unlikely coincidence, Alex
was knocked off the air five times in the first ten minutes of the show whenever he mentioned this topic."

Actually, in the terminology of firefighting and such... "pull it" means to remove the firefighting crews and let the building burn, make no attempt
to save it. It does not mean to pull the building down.

I think I have to agree with SKeptic here. Just judging from the video alone, I dont see any indication that the building was intentionally blown
up.....
At least no indication that he is 'admitting' to having done it.

His similar comments were broadcast here on local news a day or two after 7 went down, along with a Fire Chief. The Fire Chief also used "Pull" and
they both spoke of simply letting it burn out and abandon hope of saving the building.

It does seem to me that the way the building fell was inconsistent with what fema was saying caused the building to fall. Didn't they say that the
stress caused by the other buildings collapsing caused the WTC7 to fall?

If so, then, I would expect it to have been weaker on the side nearest the other WTC buildings, and a bit stronger on the far side, making it collapse
TOWARD the other buildings, not straight down. Watching the PULLIT video, the building clearly collapses straight down upon itself.

Now, I will give the benefit of the doubt on the trade towers, and pretend to agree that they collapsed straight down due to "jet fuel melting the
support structure causing the downward collapse". But WTC7 did not collapse for the same reason. It certainly appears intentional to me.

Well, I must say I have worked in the commercial construction buisiness for about 5 years went to school for construction managment for 4 years. I've
also talked with structural engineers and architects (my uncle being one of them ) and the main issue I have is that when a fire effects the
structural integrity of a building it is usually a wide spread fire throughout a large portion of the building i.e. wtc1 &2 but, when a beam or
collumn is heated to the point of loosing it's rigidity the falure is not a instant one and unless the fire is throughout the building the building
will topple towards the side or area effected rather than falling directly on itself. Also being the "world trade center" what was the C.I.A.,
F.B.I, trading ? I've looked for info but haven't found much about what theese government office branches roll was in that building.Anyone have any
info to point me to?

Originally posted by ImAlreadyPsycho
If so, then, I would expect it to have been weaker on the side nearest the other WTC buildings, and a bit stronger on the far side, making it collapse
TOWARD the other buildings, not straight down. Watching the PULLIT video, the building clearly collapses straight down upon itself.

All skyscrappers are built so they fall straight down....all of them....in order for one of these buildings to tip over and fall on one side
you need to move the top of the building more than halfway its diameter to one side and there is no force on Earth, except perhaps the strongest of
earthquakes such as we never had, that would sway and wobble any buildings that much.

double down, perhaps you should go back and refresh your memory because what you just stated is not true.

Somewhere in the forums there is a thread where this is covered and evidence is presented from both sides of this issue.... if i remember the name of
the thread was "The Feds did it" or something like that. Its too late for me to look for it or give detailed info, but if you search the forums you
will find it.

"NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?

Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we
don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it
would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its
base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been
buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over."

I have seen some videos about this collapse. Experts say, it is impossible to demolish that building so fast. It requires many days, or weeks to set
up any execution of such thing. Especially to destroy a building of this size, right after a massive terrorist attack in such chaos? See the WTC 9
demolished? Only after the entire area was cleared. And WTC7 was not damaged that badly. Why did it collapse? How?

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Actually, in the terminology of firefighting and such... "pull it" means to remove the firefighting crews and let the building burn, make no attempt
to save it. It does not mean to pull the building down.

That's interesting. Earlier in the Doc sited by Jones a Firefighters refers to "pulling" as controlled demolition.

Have you seen videos of buildings being demolished? There are several different explosions that are detonated at different times. There is no way
that this building was destoryed on purpose. I will have to agree with SO that pull it means to pull out the firefighters. And since when do
firefighters blow up buildings?

The problem is that if anyone was involved in this, big money probrably changed hands. Anyone who would come forward to say this was "an inside
job" would be considered crazy or slighted and discredited or worse.

The government isn't going to "allow" itself to be involved in any misdeed/conspiracy or wrongdoing at any cost.

Even with a new administration in place, any records would be destroyed/ altered/lost, much like Bush jr.'s military records.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.